Canon PowerShot G16 updated with test scene samples

We just updated our first impressions review of the Canon PowerShot G16 with our studio test scene showing image quality in both JPEG and Raw capture modes. It includes downloadable Raw files of both the daylight and low light scenes. As usual this allows you to compare the G16 with other cameras.

Comments

The lack of articulating viewfinder is a deal-breaker. I'm holding on to my Powershot A640, it uses standard AA batteries that also work my mouse, phone, remote, Wii remote, etc. Proprietary batteries are the reason I stopped buying Sony.

The Canon G series of cameras has sat at the top of the compact pile for several years and there are signs that Canon is taking its customers for granted. The phone app is not worth the effort of installation. The lack of a swivelling LCD is odd for a top compact. The G16 is a good camera, but not the category killer the G once was.

Comparing the various ISO's RAW and JPEG at different parts of the studio scene the RX100M2 doesn't seem so much better than the G1X to me...I must be missing something as the RX100M2 is one heck of a popular camera on here.

Please could you explain why you did the test shots at f/5.6?- first, it's not représentative of the typical use for this kind of camera. They are often used full opened or a bit stopped down, but not that much (mini. aperture is f/8)- second, I saw some test saying that the g16 lens is best around f/2, diffraction loss being visible right from f/4 (Chasseur d'images magazine).

I know it will not change the whole story, but it seems a bit unfair imho.

I won't buy it if I can't put it in my pocket. Travel in Europe is dicey, with pickpockets all over the place, drooling over iPhones and other expensive gadgets that they can quickly sell online for a goodly sum. The last time we were there one of the group was mugged and his cellphone taken. Curiously, they never asked for his wallet, credit cards, etc -- only electronics (and cash, of course). What does that tell you? At any rate, my pocket is my safe. That lets out the NEX-3N, the G1 X, and other "better" cameras.

You are right. After all the hype about the RX100M2, I tested the camera a few days ago. Despite all the good things people say about it, I find the camera is not as user friendly as my G12 or the G16. What's very good about the G12 is you get all the important dials (controls) like ISO, mode and exposure compensation up front and not in the menu. Sometimes, I wish my DSLR has that too. You get to change those variables in an instant. The grip is also better. 10Mp on the G12 is more than enough. I shot a night scene resting the camera on a rail and could make an A3 enlargement with it using ISO100, f/4.0 and 5sec exposure.

The G series has much better macro capabilty, useful for casual closeup shots of flowers and still life. Battery life is longer.

One can get an underwater housing for the G series but I am not so sure about the RX100M2.

So, even if the G series has a smaller sensor, it is a more versatile camera to use.

I like the G series cameras but if Canon wants to continue to be relevant in the enthusiast compact market, they are going to have to up their game some. The Sony RX100II may be as slippery as a bar of soap but the output from that camera is in a whole 'nother league. Canon would help themselves immensely in this segment if they A) lowered the price of the G16 and B) Released a follow-up to the G1X that at least rivals the speed of the G16 in terms of operational performance. It's not just Canon...but Nikon P7800 is way overpriced, and Olympus was out of their minds charging $600 to start for the XZ-2. 1/1.7" will soon represent the lower end of the camera market and should start to be priced accordingly.

We have both the G15 and the RX100. The Sony is by far the better camera at least image quality wise. We also have the G1X which has better image quality than the Sony. What Canon should do is come out with a G2X but make it much smaller than the G1X and do their best to keep the large (G1X) sensor.

The only reservantion against this camera is that it should have EVF instead of OVF. It alone would make the camera probably smaller and certainly much more usable.

Re "ridiculously small sensor" comments: you guys are ridiculously uninformed. Despite the RX100 1" sensor, it can provide serious IQ advantage over 1/1.7" on wide end only. The lens is not bright enough at mid-to-tele, and does not resolve closeups well enough

I agree. please have a look to the Camera Lab review.the whole story is not so "black & white" as people seems to like.As an exemple, the g16 offer a shallower dof for portraits, have better macro capabilities, better continuous shooting mode, and according this review, a bit better AF.

Anyone knows if in video mode, the zoom continues to be Digital? Although I use my G12 mainly for photos, I also like to use the video to catch my children's playing around and doing funny stuff, like any father :), but is annoying to see the pixels on the TV, every time I use the zoom during the recording…I love my G12, but I don´t mind to upgrade to the G16 if this issue already disappeared.

I would like to know about the body of the G16, metal or plastic?I am comparing the Canon G16 and the Nikon P7800. I would like to know where the Canon G16 is made? I know the Nikon P7800 is made in China and I have heard that the Canon G16 is made in Japan.Between 2 cameras, one made in Japan and the other one made in China, I guess that most people will buy the one made in Japan, even though the P7800 has a better lens.

Nope.... full metal boby. The thick black coating is misleading like on my S95 and other G cameras. But i don't know if it's one piece magnesium or magnesium sheets screwed ond stainless steel frame...

I think those tilt and swivel screens are more for the blokes who rather argue those points instead of making pictures. It seems that everyone who makes the point to ask also has nothing in their free DPR Gallery nor a link to something else. Why then would they need a flippy twisty screen?

because compared to DSLRs, compacts are easier to hold in other positions and a tilt swivel screen allows the photographer to explore different possibilities in composition through these different positions. This you would have known if you spent more time taking photos.

I have one on my Canon HX40HS, and find it works great where you are in a crowd and forced to shoot up and over the crowd, you can just tilt the screen downwards to frame a good shot. The other way I use it is when I want to take a picture of myself next to someone else, I can swivel the screen so I can view it from the front of the camera and thus frame a good "buddy" shot of the two of us. I'm sure there are other ways as well......

Guidenet... Seriously dude!! talk with a higher level of respect for the art of photography! A professional for 38 years and I can assure you that swivel and tilt screens on these little accent shot cameras are an important feature sadly missed on the G15 and now G16. shooting from the ground or above your head is a great advantage and is why many will not give up their G12. I have the G15 and its a great little number to have in your pocket to shoot wedding accents such as the rings, table dressings and all those little things that make contextual shots. Swivels are fantastic for this type of shooting. Please think before saying silly stuff, as peer photographers we should always have respect for one another!

It's always someone who's ignorant and never used a t&s screen that slams then.In addition to what's said above, any time you have the camera on a tripod and it's not at eye-level, it's sooo useful.I'll pick up a G17 if it has one and a lens that opens to 24mm.If we're lucky we'll also see one on the 5D Mk IV...

Stop making a fool of yourself. Is it really that hard for to to grasp the kind of shots that you can take with that twisty thing?

For street photography, a swivel screen is golden. Ive frequently set the camera to the side of me and gotten pictures that would have otherwise not been possible. How about shooting BEHIND you- without walkign backwards? Can you do that with you 5d3? Dont think so.

Despite my concerns on the price...I bought this camera and got it from Amazon last night. I am not so sure the AF has improved in low light over the G15. But the image quality is impressive. The rounded handgrip up front makes it more comfortable to hold but the thumb grip on the back is slightly smaller.

Would agree with "JustmeMN" >Minor updates mean continued sales, with minimal R&D expenses.<Evolution can be beneficial, small but impressive tweaks, rather than throw it away each time.Saving R&D costs can mean better value products.In same way I had several 35mm Canon cameras ..AE1, E1, EOS600 ......... development of the family.

Panasonic GX-7, LF-1 and Nikon's P7800 all have accurate EVFs leaving the Canon with a highly inaccurate glass tunnel to roughly guess what you are getting. As I need corrected vision close up, a VF is essential so this means the Canon Gs are still off the list. Pity, as I like Canon products overall and would have bought the G15/16 had it come with a decent OVF or EVF. One other thing, Canon have a shorter zoom range than the competition so why can't they give us a 24-140mm to compete with Nikon and Panasonic's 28-200mm?

Surprised at how Canon keeps ignoring the market overall. Still one more iteration without a 24mm wide lens, still just 12mp and a small sensor compared to the now leading RX-100 cameras. Still too heavy, still too big.

Canon already made the mistake of entering the more pixels race in earlier versions of the G series.

Thankfully Canon learnt that better image quality at higher ISOs is more important than simply more pixel cramming, and Canon revised the sensors in later G cameras to have 10 and now 12MP. (Wikipedia link to G series: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_PowerShot_G)

Frankly 8MP would be better.

So drop the more pixels unconditionally makes a better image implication. Even the vaunted Sony RX100 suffers from pixel cramming sins. Though the new one, with the BSI sensor, sure looks better at higher ISOs. Anyhow in either case, those Sonys have a much bigger sensor than the Canon.

In fact Canon is not “ignoring the overall market”, cameras like the Panasonic LX7 and the Olympus XZ2 have 10 and 12MP sensors respectively, and those are direct competitors.

I have a Canon G12 which I use more often than my Canon 5D Mk2, 40D, Lumix GF1 and other film cameras.

I don't think Canon is ignoring the market overall with the G series. In fact, the G has an established customer base. Those who go diving but could not buy a DSLR housing would most likely use a G series camera with its affordable housing. Many journalists would use a G camera for small assignments. The G series is adequite for many travel writers who do not need enlargement larger than A3. Contrary to what others say, it is quite a capable "small" camera.

Most important, it must be user friendly. I have no complaints about my G12 for what it can do. The G16 should be better.

10Mp is more than enough, 12Mp is about the ceiling for the sensor size. Just keep it that way.

Hey, I could do an A3 enlargement with an image taken with the 7Mp Powershot A620 years ago without any problem. So how big do you want to go?

I also 100% agree with whataboutraw.The g12/ g15,,etc continue to be very popular. This is the reason canon does continue to make them.When it does come to more pixels in a small sensor..,canon make a good move.Less pixels are better.

I have the 5DMKII, 50D, G15 and the Sony RX100 and use them all but the one standout for portable light compact shooting is the G15, its very impressive and the only reason I will not be updating it for the G16 is that the G16 still does not have the swivel and tilt screen. The RX100 is not as good as the G15 for picture quality but the RX100 is much smoother for video and is why I have kept it in my kit.

Gunther35Aloha and thank you for posting your comments--organized, on topic and to the point. The type of comment that is needed on any camera forum. Agree or not, you have given clear and precise observations.Mahalo

When I bought my G9 it was the compact camera of choice., it could shoot raw, it had full manual controls and a magnesium aloy body. It was one of a few compacts a professional photographer considered. This was in 2007. For me this is where my interest in the G series ended, although still excellent cameras , compact iLCs with aps c sensors and interchangeable lenses and being able to use old Lieca , Contax and Angenieux lenses via adapter for the same price as G series camera ended my enchantment. I remember the outrage when the G7 didn't shoot raw. Given that the new bodies are plastic, the price is high and the sensors are small and they are made for professionals who are aware of all this, I wonder how they even sell at all. The blunders of the EOS M and now this ? Can't Cannon at least put an aps-c sensor to at least make it worth looking at ? Cannon has more than proven they make excellent ones. can't imagine buying this camera, I think others feel the same. 9 fps per second is nice but not enough of a rationale to get the camera. Is Cannon asleep? Is a stubborn moron in market research holding everyone hostage at Cannon ? Are they trying to lose a lot of money and reap the rewards of an obscure subsidy or stock option of some kind? I really can't account for any reasons Canon has for making an obsolanete camera and figure out why anyone would want to buy it? I remember when Canon made the best cameras on the market from the 1980's until now. Nikon and Sony are catching up and in some ways even surpassing Canon. Canon's response seems to be bending over backwards to fail. Hopefully Canon will wake up, otherwise the mid 2000's will be remembered as a once great maker a remembered fondly in spite of it's failures like a Voightlandänder and the German camera industry before they lost out to the Japanese in the early 70's

M4/3rds?Same size, much bigger sensor, IQ equivalent to APS-C except for large print pixel peepers, better internal EV in some models, large collection of great glass smaller and lighter than APS-C lenses etc.

I bought a Panasonic G3 and yes, it is not much larger or heavier than a G series. Panasonic are, however, building newer Gs larger and heavier defeating the purpose of small. If only the G had a decent OVF or EVF.

Hi : You ask :" Can't Cannon at least put an aps-c sensor to at least make it worth looking at ? ".G1X has an APS-C sensor.., and was not popular !!!People complained a lot.The G series at the time , sold much better than the aps-c canon which was the canon G1X.In fact the september 2011 when a small sensor G was due , canon did not launch any G small sensor camera.January 2012 G1X was launched.

1) Built in viewfinder2) No buffer at 9 fps!3) IQ will be pretty close at the tele focal lengths because the lens is almost 2 stops faster at the tele end.4)Better ergonomics ( I always prefer a smaller lens to body ratio)5)A second custom setting on the dial6)longer telephoto reach7)A remote cable switch

In addition to that tidbit of 411, what's your thoughts on a side-by-side comp of Canon's G16 v Sony's RX100ll? I really like both but the G16 seems more sturdy and offers a little more body to grip. While I'm not familiar with Sony cams, I'm impressed with its low light rez and overall IQ. What am I missing?

I own a G15 and the RX100. If you want great videos get the RX100 but for Stills the G series is much better. You don't realize this until you commence post editing... Not that the RX100 is bad, its just that the G series is better in both image quality and has a much better menu system with good direct access to the essentials.

You are right. After all the hype about the RX100M2, I tested the camera a few days ago. Despite all the good things people say about it, I find the camera is not as user friendly as my G12 or the G16. What's very good about the G12 is you get all the important dials (controls) like ISO, mode and exposure compensation up front and not in the menu. Sometimes, I wish my DSLR has that too. You get to change those variables in an instant. The grip is also better. 10Mp on the G12 is more than enough. I shot a night scene resting the camera on a rail and could make an A3 enlargement with it using ISO100, f/4.0 and 5sec exposure.

The G series has much better macro capabilty, useful for casual closeup shots of flowers and still life. Battery life is longer.

One can get an underwater housing for the G series but I am not so sure about the RX100M2.

So, even if the G series has a smaller sensor, it is a more versatile camera to use.

The G1X has accurate but very slow focusing. The lens is slow, too. It has no close-up capability at all--the way cameras used to be, when you bought a macro lens and got outstanding macro results. It's large and not stylish. But the absolute worst feature is that once you see the image quality, you're not going to consider any of the other G series.

I think some may have a misunderstanding regarding the G1X. There is nothing on the market today that packs a near-APS C size sensor and zoom lens in such a small package.

My experience has been that the G1X's autofocus is in the same general performance category as the G11/G12...not a speed demon but acceptably decent. What often gets overlooked is its ability to really crank up the ISO and still maintain excellent image quality. Yes, macros aren't its strong suit.

As far as overall flexibility in taking images under a very wide variety of lighting conditions, it far outshines the G15/16. This is a very underrated camera.

There is a segmant of the market that still believes that bigger is better irrespective of sensor size. People that have large hands or that are used to the ergonomics of a chunky design that is big enough to grip firmly love this design. This is one of the reasons why people have not crossed over the compact mirrorless cameras and are still buying traditionally styled DSLRs. Also, a larger camera is peceived to be the tool of a serious or semi-pro photographer and unfortunately many amateurs like to be seen with a big camera around their necks rather than some dinky looking toy (their thinking, not mine). This is possibly why the Panasonic GH3 has grown to DSLR size to capture this market despite its smaller mirrorless heritage.

G15 with its f/1.8 lens, good af, low price, and excellent image quality at <=1000 iso handle most situations very well and is a great deal.

G16 seems to address the fps issue for those needing great action photography at low cost. It also fixes the main complaint regarding G15 video (that it didn't support 1080p60). So, a nice incremental bump.

Going forward, the biggest issue holding back the G series is noise at >1000 iso and the minimal zoom (5X is starting to look pathetic). My guess is that G17 will have a variable f/1.4-f/2.0 lens with 10x zoom. Faster lens = less noise for most shots. That seems much more realistic than assuming they'll get a larger sensor down to g15/16's size and price point without sacrificing lens speed, fast a/f, and fps.

The G-series was a serious contender during the early boom of DCs but with the advent of MILC, I find it increasing difficult to find a justification for this line. There are M4/3 and NEX cameras that offer better quality and performance with less bulk and comparable prices, and compact DCs that fit in your pocket with similar image quality, which makes me wonder what benefit the G-series offers in today's market.

And a few months after this Canon G16 ships, it will retail for less than those system camera bodies. So the comparable prices thing is misleading.

With lenses those are all bigger than the G16.

It is lovely that Canon stuck with the wheels for adjustment on this G series. Sony could learn something from that.

No, barring some radical change in sensor technology–prisms, Samsung’s Isocell perhaps–this smaller G series isn’t likely to compete with the likes of the Sony RX100 or MFT cameras for high ISOs. But this is a good smallish camera, with real manual control and very good image quality at lower ISOs.

Finally: It shoots raw, and Canon fixed the slow lens problem of versions like the G12.

Does it have stiff competition from the likes of the Fuji X20 or the Olympus XZ2? Yes.

I cannot understand the NEX3 being touted as an alternative. The whole point of the G cameras is you do not have to wade through labyrinthine menus to do anything as is necessary with the stripped to the bare essentials entry level NEX's.

Most people would never be able to see any differences in prints between the current small sensor cameras and the load of apsc cameras flooding the market. You are better off investng in a great printer and fine art grade paper if results are important to you.

Panasonic LF-1, GX-7, Nikon P7800 all have electronic viewfinders and the Fuji X20 has more than an inaccurate tunnel a la Canon G series. The market appears to be moving toward accurate viewfinders and for me not having an EVF or a reasonably accurate OVF is a deal breaker. Pity the G16 didn't catch up with Nikon and Panasonic in this area.

I can answer that because I just got the camera last night...up front it does but the thumb grip on back is slightly smaller and less comfortable than on the G15...so it's pretty much a wash between the two.

Amazing so much criticism for a camera that performs so well for the price. Wifi-sticker ugly, really? lol

I'm seriously amused and smiling when reading the comments, so don't confuse this comment as whining, It's seriously amazing to me to read some of the criticisms and comparisons to cameras that are in another class or price range entirely.

The most interesting compact camera with such a feature set is neither the G16 nor the P7800, while the Nikon would, for my purposes, come closer than the Canon, but rather the Panasonic LF1, which includes both a 28-200mm (eq.) lens and an electronic viewfinder, and it's so small that it's indeed pocketable, something neither the Canon nor the Nikon really is.

If the LF-1's EVF was reasonable quality I would have been tempted. Put the P7800's EVF in the Panny and they would sell like hot cakes. Canon are falling behind with the G15 and G16 with the old OVF that is far too inaccurate to rely upon for composing your shot.

It's a great little camera. Put a Leica logo on it and most of you guys who now criticize it would be salivating for it.

I have a Fuji X20 which cleanly outmatches the G16 in two areas which are important to me: shutter lag (the X20 has none) and small size. However, the G series is excellent; I've used several, a G10, G12, G14, G1X and they all perform admirably, much better than, say, the Leicas that are nothing but rebadged Lumixes.

This isn't so far-fetched. Too late now, but if they had put a red dot on the G1X and priced it at $999, DPR would have said "While we have considerable reservations about the G1X's quirks there is no denying the large sensor produces better images than it's competitors."

I'd be curious as to how you used the G14 as Canon went from the G12 to the G15, skipping 13 and 14. Are you just making things up to sound impressive? I have used the G15 and just as the article says the shutter lag is pretty much nonexistent so your argument that the Fuji X20 outmatches the G16 is doubtful. While the Fuji is a fine camera I'm inclined to go with the Canon with its brighter lens and much better battery life.

I said I used it, and I'm pretty sure it was a 14, because it certainly wasn't a 12, certainly not a G1X and definitely not the 10. I never bought one because it did not fit my other need, size. But I was certainly impressed by the G's. And I really stand by my assessment: put a little Leica logo and half the photographers would be salivating but, because it is an evolution of something that is pretty good, everyone is going "yawn".

No G13 or 14 ever existed. Must have been the 15. I do agree that if Leica made it, it would be a hot little momma, but they didn't. It's the same old boring Canon design with minimal upgrades IMO. The G's are great cameras, but I haven't seen any improvements that would make me jump from the 12 to the 16. I like the LF1, but it's too tiny, so I'll probably go with the new Nikon for a compact.

Could have been another 12 for all I know and it just looked different to me. I'm always amazed at how people always grab some tiny detail and hang their entire argument on it.

The point is not the nomenclature, but the camera itself. The times that I've used G's, I have found the image to be really good, the quality solid, the controls very good and the only thing that I didn't like that much was the size and, naturally, the shutter lag.

People are willing to pay $200 or more for the rebadged Lumix under the Leica badge when they are clearly inferior: long lags, slow focus and, in the case of the M's, notorious problems such as the shredding of the memory cards.

Yet, when a manufacturer takes a good product, slowly but surely makes it better, it is criticized because "it is not enough"

Greynard, It is ALSO amazing that you missed the part of my post that reads "...would be the first thing to go". That means if I were to buy this camera I would peel it off. Others seem to agree. The entire point is it would be peeled off. Good grief.

The G1X is at another level, it is m4/3 territory which made it larger and slower to focus. Between the Nikon 1, RX, and the G, I would preferred the Nikon but I don't need an ILC. The RX seems the best, but the price is steep. The G is huge yet nice to handle but with IQ lagging.

Like others -- I see the removal of the articulated screen as an omission for sure. Otherwise, a good tweak to the G series and a possible acquisition if you haven't owned one in quite a while. My G3 was an incredible camera -- and the shots I got from it are still among some of the best pictures I have taken.

I bought each of the G series- trading in each one for 50% of the cost of a new one- and stopped at the G12. In the interim I bought the G1X for the larger sensor. My problem with all of the series was solved with the new lens on the G15 (which I did not buy). f2.8 reducing to 5.6 or whatever when the lens is extended, is too slow. The other item is the v/f. I shoot only through a v/f and it is difficult with these cameras. We need an EVF. Don't ask me why, but when the price dropped like a stone, I bought the EOS M for the sensor size. I can only use it with one lens and an OVF. I have been waiting for a G1X withe a faster lens. I will give up on the V/F if they will produce one. The lenses and quality are wonderful.